You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

He does believe that the Federal government should stay out of the decision for same-sex marriages. But he also supports the right for States to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages or unions from other States. In other words, he believes States right should trump everything else, which would allow more conservative States to retain their bigotry.

Yes, but it's not exactly accurate to say he's anti-gay marriage. He's more gay marriage neutral (indeed, marriage-neutral in general), which, yes, IMO is the same as being anti-gay marriage in practice, since we know that taking no federal action to secure such rights will simply result in more of the same (which is why I also take issue with his BS about the civil rights act.) He's just not anti-gay rights in principle; I would reserve that description for someone like Bachmann or all of the other Nehemiah Scudder stand-ins we've had in the recent past.

"Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[193] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[193][194]

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[195] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[196] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[197] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[198][199] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[198]

In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction."

It sounds to me like his beliefs could be based more on liberties and the right to be as one wishes, rather than pro-anything. After all, it would also grant more liberal states more freedom, as well. He wants to make the federal government less powerful, and give more power to the states, in general.

I see him as wanting to preserve the way-things-are. Where it's more liberal, leave it that way. Where it's more conservative, leave it that way. (That is, until that STATE is ready to change it..... with no impact from the federal government). Let the states decide, and divide the people.

Yes, but it's not exactly accurate to say he's anti-gay marriage. He's more gay marriage neutral, which, yes, IMO is the same as being anti-gay marriage in practice, since we know that taking no federal action to secure such rights will simply result in more of the same (which is why I also take issue with his BS about the civil rights act.) He's just not anti-gay rights in principle; I would reserve that description for someone like Bachmann or all of the other Nehemiah Scudder stand-ins we've had in the recent past.

If you take into account his religiosity, you should see a pattern to his stances and not only about gay marriage. He's pro-libertarian except when it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Can't support his hypocrisy.

If you take into account his religiosity, you should see a pattern to his stances and not only about gay marriage. He's pro-libertarian except when it conflicts with his religious beliefs. Can't support his hypocrisy.

I'm not telling you to support him, nor am I arguing that he actively supports gay rights (which he clearly does not.) I don't support him (though I agree with him on some things.) I'm just saying that he doesn't support the government taking away gay rights (he voted for the repeal of DADT, if you recall) unless it's at the state level with regards to marriage or sodomy laws or whatever, in which case he just thinks it should be up to them. I don't think that will do much good in the way of promoting gay rights, to be sure, but it's not the same as wanting to do some shit like write a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Also, if you can't support hypocrisy in a candidate, then you must not vote at all, I take it?

I'm not telling you to support him, nor am I arguing that he actively supports gay rights (which he clearly does not.) I don't support him (though I agree with him on some things.) I'm just saying that he doesn't support the government taking away gay rights (he voted for the repeal of DADT, if you recall) unless it's at the state level with regards to marriage or sodomy laws or whatever, in which case he just thinks it should be up to them. I don't think that will do much good in the way of promoting gay rights, to be sure, but it's not the same as wanting to do some shit like write a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Also, if you can't support hypocrisy in a candidate, then you must not vote at all, I take it?

Depends on their schtick. If they purport to being a grass roots style honest man and their hypocrisy is evident, then no, I won't vote for them. If they're not sanctimonious about it and I agree with some of their political stances where they're the least of the bad choices, I'll vote for them.

He's biased, I'll agree to that. But who isn't? I suppose it depends on whether you like his biased-views or not, or whether you don't care one way or another about his biases. He seems to be in-the-middle enough. Moreso than many politicians...... A hypocrite? Could be, but so are all of the other politicians, and unless I'm biased and hypocritical myself, I will judge hypocrisy equally.

I don't see him as being a liar, as much as I do other politicians. I think he is who he appears to be, moreso than most.

He is the best of the lot of Republican's he is fighting against and is consistent. He is much more antiwar than Obama. He may differ on people about different things but most of it is less about how he feels about a choice to legislate and more about who has the right to legislate. (esp. state/locality rights vs. federal commerce clause which has been expanded beyond all logic for regulate morality.

It sickens me how the corporate controlled media ignores/disrespects him but go all goo goo over the flavor of the week candidate.

If he were to win the Republican primary, then I as an independent, would choose him over Obama in a general election in a heartbeat.

I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

Originally Posted by Edgar

Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

He does believe that the Federal government should stay out of the decision for same-sex marriages. But he also supports the right for States to refuse to recognise same-sex marriages or unions from other States. In other words, he believes States right should trump everything else, which would allow more conservative States to retain their bigotry.

Bigotry says you.

Otherwise known as retaining their senses and reflecting the inevitably minority-majority relations involved in that particular political issue. Why does respect for diversity involve uniformity? Why should a minority interest itself in a minority sexual preference anyway?

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture